^1,2Arshya Keyvanfar,³Elham Shayegh

¹Assistant Professor of TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch.

²Ph.D. Candidate of Anthropology, University of Tehran.

³Master of English Translation, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch. Iran

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i12-73

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This paper aims to draw your attention to an ever-growing issue, “Othering”, in most societies, especially the United States of America, and the crucial role of political leaders on people in their society, and as a result, in the global village. Considering the aim of this research, a most heard political discourse, the first presidential debate of the United States of America in 2020, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, was analyzed based on Faircloughian critical discourse analysis in terms of othering. The three-dimensions of Faircough’s model, description, interpretation, and explanation, were applied on the debate to compare and contrast the two representatives of the two main political parties of the United States of America. The results of the research are described or, if possible, are shown in terms of percentages in tables and a figure. To conclude, based on the findings in this corpus comparative study Joe Biden had a better performance in terms of othering in comparison with Donald Trump in all dimensions of this study, at the first presidential debate in 2020.

KEYWORDS:

Critical discourse analysis, Fairclough’s CDA mode, presidential debate.

REFERENCES

1) Bacon P, Jr. (2018). The Republican Party has changed dramatically since George H. W. Bush ran it. Retreived from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-has-changed-dramatically-since-george-h-w-bush-ran-it/

2) Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics. Routledge.

3) Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). “Greater Internet use is not Associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (40), 10612-10617. https://10.1073/pnas.1706588114.

4) Fairclough, I., Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis. A Method for Advanced Students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.1373

5) Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman. Isenberg, D.J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141

6) Levinas, E. In R. Kearney (Ed.). Dialogues with contemporary continental. (pp. 47- 69). Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/002114008805400306

7) Newman, L.S. (2002). Understanding genocide: The social psychology of the Holocaust. Oxford University Press, (pp. 143–161). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133622.001.0001

8) Sunstein, C.R. (2002). The law of group polarization, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148

9) Wodak, R., & Ludwig, C. (1999). Challenges in a changing world: Issues in critical discourse analysis. Passagenverlag.

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 12 DECEMBER 2022